Depending on the place in the life of society, sociological theories assign conflict, they can be divided into two groups: some recognize conflict as the starting point of social analysis, others rely on the idea of ​​a holistic existence of society, from which they deduce the mechanism of conflict. We will call the former theories of the “original” conflict, and the latter the theories of the “derivative” conflict.

The difference between these two types of theories is not difficult to see: in the theories of the "original" conflict, society is riddled with conflicts at every point, each of its elements is aimed at mismatch and disintegration, which gives rise to social changes and coercion of some members of society by others; in theories of “derivative” conflict, society is a stable and well-integrated structure, where the elements have a certain function and act in the direction of value agreement, stability and unification.

Social Darwinism. At the end of XIX ...
century, the works of the English sociologist appeared G. Spencer(1820-1903), in which the conflict began to be seen as one of the main incentives for social development. Spencer argued that the struggle for survival, conflicts between individuals and groups contribute to the balance in society, ensure the process of social development. G. Spencer was a supporter of social Darwinism, which was developed in this period. Social Darwinists argued that society can be identified with the organism. This makes it possible to explain social life by biological laws. Ardent representatives of this doctrine, along with Spencer, were W. Bagggot, W. Sumner, L. Gumplovich, G. Ratzenhofer, A. Small, who, describing the manifestations of social struggle in a clash of interests, inherited norms and new ideas, attracted knowledge to the problem conflict.

Marxism. A special place in the theory of social conflict is occupied by the works K. Marx(1818-1883), whose discovery of a materialistic understanding of history made it possible to take a fresh look at the development of social relations. According to K. Marx, in a society people enter into necessary social relations with each other, which do not depend on their will and consciousness. This is the main condition for the formation of social substance, society. Its development is carried out in accordance with the dialectical law of the unity and struggle of opposites, which in this society are represented by large social groups or classes. The main problem in their relationship is the system of resource allocation.

Based on this, the main theses of the Marxian concept of conflict are formulated: the more unevenly scarce resources are distributed in the system, the deeper the conflict between the ruling and subordinate classes; the deeper the subordinate classes begin to realize their true interests, the more likely they are to doubt the legitimacy of the existing form of resource allocation; the more the subordinate classes become aware of their interests and begin to doubt the legitimacy of the existing distribution, the more likely it is that they will have to come into common conflict with the ruling classes; the higher the ideological unification of the members of the subordinate classes, the more developed their structure of political leadership, the stronger the polarization of the opposing classes; the stronger the polarization of the dominant and the oppressed, the more violent the conflict will be; the more violent the conflict, the more structural changes in the system it will cause and the more redistribution of the missing resources will result.

Researchers of the legacy of K. Marx drew attention to the fact that he considered the class conflict without a theoretical analysis of its various behavioral forms. It points to the absolutization of the role of economic relations in the emergence of social conflict. Marx believed that each of the conflicting parties has only one goal - the desire to dispose of scarce resources, which was refuted by social practice.

Functional theory of conflict. A notable step in the study of conflict by Western sociology was the work of the German sociologist G. Simmel(1858-1918), who is rightfully considered the founder of the functional theory of conflict. According to Simmel, conflict is a universal phenomenon; moreover, a completely unified and harmonious group or society is generally unthinkable. Even if they existed, without the mechanism of self-development and without being exposed to impulses that stimulate change, they would not be viable.

Simmel's conclusions about the impact of conflict on the internal structure of the group are important. In extreme situations, such as in the event of war, the tendency towards centralization intensifies up to the establishment of a despotic regime. Having arisen, the centralized structure strives for self-preservation and, for this purpose, tends to look for a new adversary to create new external conflicts. Simmel's contribution to conflict theory is the inclusion of a third party. Relations in a dyad admit the possibility of only straightforward conflict. With the advent of the "third" opens up the possibility of multifaceted relationships, awareness of differences, the formation of coalitions, the formation of group solidarity, i.e. the possibility of complex social interaction.

Structural functionalism. In the first half of the XX century. the problem of conflict in sociology developed within the framework of the system-functional school. Conflicts were seen as negative processes hindering the development of society. The attention of sociologists was occupied by strikes, protest demonstrations, military conflicts and other "anomalies" of social reality. This reorientation was justified by the American sociologist T. Parsons(1902-1979) in The Structure of Social Action. Analyzing the functional model of society, T. Parsons considered the conflict as the cause of destabilization and disorganization of public life.

The main direction of social life is conceived as a desire to harmonize relations, restore balance according to the type of homeostasis. For Parsons, tension is an important category, but it is, as it were, secondary and not necessarily destructive: “Tension is the tendency to unbalance the balance of exchange between two or more components of a system.” The category of "tension" is also used by a student of Parsons N.Smelzer.

According to Smelser, four levels of factors regulating human activity should be distinguished: the highest, generalized goals and values ​​(beliefs, beliefs); norms (general social rules); ways of organizing people (rules of action within a particular group); available options for action in a particular situation.

At the first two levels, a person's social actions are determined by the fact that he acts as a member of a large group (church, state, nation, etc.), demonstrating adherence to faith, beliefs, generally accepted norms of behavior or unbelief and deviant behavior. At the third level, the main characteristic of social action is loyalty or disloyalty to one's organization or small group. On the fourth - confidence or uncertainty in the successful use of funds to solve a situational problem.

The source of the conflict is the inconsistency between the levels of needs: the needs of the organism collide with the needs of the individual, or both - with the requirements of culture. Here one can easily trace a sociological parallel with the psychological system coming from James and Freud.

Tension, potentially containing conflict, arises as a result of a discrepancy between levels or inconsistency between elements of the same level. The growth of tensions at various points in the system of social interactions leads to breaks in this system, which is expressed in riots, uprisings, religious and national clashes, etc. Therefore, the most important task for society is compensation and balancing of stresses. This is achieved by changing social orders, introducing innovations into them that open up ways to restore the integration of society.

Parsons and Smelser describe seven stages through which the process of social change usually goes: the emergence of a feeling of dissatisfaction with the achievements made; the occurrence of anxiety symptoms (hostility, aggression, utopias); an attempt to resolve tension on the basis of state ideas with the mobilization of motivational resources; the emergence of tolerance for new ideas in the leadership echelon; analysis and concretization of new ideas; willingness to take risks and apply innovations; the inclusion of innovation in the usual order, turning it into a part of the economic structure.

Having defined the conflict as a social anomaly, he saw the main task in maintaining conflict-free relations between various elements of society, which would ensure social balance, mutual understanding and cooperation. At the level of the social system, the integrative function is performed by legal institutions, religion and customs. As society develops, it increases its “generalized adaptive capacity” and becomes less conflicted.

An important aspect of this theory is that the regulation of the social system takes into account not only rational moments. Parsons already pointed out that social tensions evoke fantasies, unfulfilled hopes, and a tendency to mythologizing. Smelser describes the emergence of mass hysteria as follows: “In an atmosphere of uncertainty, a person is in a state of excitement because he does not know what he should be afraid of; and when he goes into a hysterical state, he at least believes that he knows where the danger comes from.

Among the measures that regulate tension and prevent the exacerbation of social conflicts, Smelser suggests: “informational and psychological training of the population; the development of special programs that would prevent the negative impact of a situation of uncertainty and would help streamline psychological reactions based on a deeper understanding of what is happening; increasing the authority of rational knowledge and the art of management - as opposed to explosions of hysteria, outbursts of violence, relying on a charismatic leader or on new ideological doctrines that inspire various kinds of utopian hopes.

The theory of "positive-functional conflict". Publication in 1956 of the work of an American sociologist L. Koser The Functions of Social Conflict laid the foundations for the modern sociology of conflict. In the concept of “positive-functional conflict”, L. Koser substantiated the positive role of conflicts in ensuring the stability of social systems. Developing the ideas of Simmel, Koser argued that there are no and cannot be social groups without conflict relations.

Koser distinguishes two types of society - closed (rigid, unitary) and open (pluralistic). Societies of the first type are split into two hostile classes, the conflict between which undermines social harmony and threatens to destroy the social order by revolutionary and violent means. In societies of the second type, there are many conflicts between different strata and groups, but there are social institutions that protect social harmony and turn the energy of conflicts to the benefit of society. This is possible because social conflicts can perform two kinds of functions - negative (destructive) and positive (constructive). The challenge is to limit the negative and use the positive features.

According to Koser, the struggle between social groups and individuals for the redistribution of material values ​​and power performs the following positive functions:

§ Discharging tense relations between the participants and giving vent to negative emotions, the completed conflict allows you to save the relationship between the conflicting parties, i.e. return them to their original state.

§ In the course of conflict interaction, people get to know each other more, since the conflict performs a testing function. Mutual knowledge contributes to the transformation of hostile relations into relations of cooperation.

§ A positive function of social conflict Coser also considered that it stimulates social change, the emergence of new social orders, norms and relations.

"Conflict Model of Society". In the late 1950s, a German sociologist R. Dahrendorf(b. 1929) substantiated a new theory of social conflict, which was called the "conflict model of society" ("Classes and class conflict in an industrial society", 1957).

Human society in Dahrendorf's concept is depicted as a system of interactions between conflicting social groups (classes). Conflicts are inevitable and necessary. Their absence is an “amazing and abnormal” phenomenon. Dahrendorf identifies conflicts of different levels; between inconsistent expectations that are presented to the bearer of any social role; between social roles; intragroup; between social groups; conflicts at the level of society as a whole: interstate conflicts. The result is a hierarchy of conflicts, in which there are 15 types. Dahrendorf accepts the Marxist notion of class antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as correct, but believes that this antagonism was the main conflict only in European history in the 19th century. The transition to a post-industrial society taking place in the 20th century is associated with a decrease in the severity of interclass contradictions. Conflicts in post-industrial society are becoming more diverse. And at the same time, the principles of pluralism and democracy are affirmed in this society, on the basis of which mechanisms are created for "canalization" of social conflicts, their settlement in line with conciliation procedures. Dahrendorf emphasizes that it is better to speak of "settlement" rather than "resolution" of conflicts, because social conflicts are usually only limited, localized, transformed into other, more acceptable forms, while the term "resolution" focuses on their complete elimination.

General theory of conflict. In the early 1960s, an American sociologist K. Boulding made an attempt to create a universal doctrine of conflict - a "general theory of conflict" ("Conflict and Defense: A General Theory", 1963). In accordance with it, conflict is a universal category inherent in the living and inanimate world, serving as a basic concept for analyzing the processes of the social, physical, chemical and biological environment. All conflicts have common functions, properties and tendencies of occurrence, flow and resolution. According to Boulding, in human nature lies the desire for a constant struggle with their own kind, for the escalation of violence. However, conflicts need to be overcome, significantly limited.

The theory considers two models of conflict - static and dynamic. In the static model, Boulding analyzes the "parties of the conflict" and the system of relations between them. These relationships are based on the principle of competition. In the dynamic model, Boulding considers the interests of the parties as motivating forces in the conflict behavior of people. Using the ideas of behaviorism, he defines the dynamics of the conflict as a process consisting of the reactions of the opposing parties to external stimuli. Therefore, social clashes are "reactive processes."

G. Spencer is considered the founder of functionalism, whose ideas were a powerful stimulus for the development of the organic school. Representatives of this direction, first of all, focus on the contradictions of public life, clashes of interests and the struggle of various social groups.

The main provisions of G. Spencer:

· Conflicts are considered from the standpoint of social Darwinism, they are considered an inevitable phenomenon in the history of society, a stimulus for social development.

· Social conflict is caused by the struggle for existence, which in turn is determined by the limited amount of life resources.

· The struggle for survival, conflicts between individuals and groups contribute to the balance in society, ensure the process of social development.

Characteristics of the social conflict of K. Marx

K. Marx was the founder of the first sociological paradigm of conflict. According to Marx, it is conflicts that explain social processes and changes, permeate the life of society in all its directions, as well as conflicts that explain the implementation of revolutions and the transition to a new society.

K. Marx sees the causes of social conflicts in the division of society into opposite (hostile) classes. The Marxist analysis of the conflict focuses on the macro-social level, concerning the contradictions laid down fundamentally.

The main provisions of K. Marx:

· The development of society is based on two types of conflicts: the conflict between the productive forces and production relations, the conflict between the economic basis and the ideological superstructure.

· Class struggle, class conflict develops into a revolution, which is the driving force of history, because. as a result of the social revolution, society is rapidly moving to a higher level of development.

· Contradictions and conflicts are permanent, sometimes escalating, sometimes fading, but never stopping.

They cover the entire social system and its elements.

· Progressive development of society is possible due to contradictions, confrontation, conflicts and revolutions.

· Conflicts are considered exclusively from a positive point of view.

Essential interpretation of the conflict by G. Simmel

Considered one of the founders of modern sociology, Georg Simmel is credited with coining the very term "sociology of conflict". According to G. Simmel, "the conflict clears the air." G. Simmel believed that conflict in society is inevitable, and considered one of its main forms - the conflict between the individual and society. Unlike K. Marx, G. Simmel showed interest in a wider range of conflict phenomena, describing conflicts between ethnic groups, and between different generations of people, and between men and women. But the main difference between G. Simmel's sociology of conflict and the ideas of K. Marx is the belief that conflict can lead to social unification and, providing an outlet for hostility, strengthen social unanimity.

The main provisions of G. Simmel's theory of social conflicts:

1. Social conflicts are systemic, necessary, natural phenomena of culture as a whole, general and universal, because pervade all spheres of society.

2. Conflicts are viewed as a process of manifestation of disagreements, uniting opposing but interconnected parties; those. conflict is a form of disagreement.

3. The conflict acts as an integrating force that unites the warring parties, contributes to the stabilization of society, strengthens specific organizations.

In the 1950s, a special conflictological direction emerged in modern sociology as a kind of reaction to the emphasis of structural functionalism on harmony, stability, and integration of social. systems and inattention to social. conflicts, radical transformations. The problem of social many sociologists of the past (Marxism, Gumplovich, Weber, Pareto) dealt with the conflict. We are talking about a special and systematic study of social. conflicts within the framework of a special "theory of conflicts", which developed and became widespread only in the 2nd half of the 20th century. The merit of Mils, Coser, Dahrendorf, Rex is especially great in this. Social conflicts are studied not only by sociology, but also by psychology, social. philosophy, etc.

Conflictology as a whole is an interdisciplinary branch of scientific knowledge that studies the emergence, formation, development and resolution of conflicts. Conflicts are recognized as an important factor in social development. In the social approach to conflicts, the study of their place in the role of the social system comes to the fore.

Lewis Coser (1913) is considered one of the founders of the functionalist theory of social conflict. He tried to combine evolutionary functionalism and the theory of social conflict. Social conflicts develop not outside, but within society as a social. system as a result of strengthening its differentiation and the growth of the isolation of its structures. Emphasizes the positive role of social conflicts (representatives of classical functionalism - negatively). In the works "Functions of social. conflict”, “Continuation of the study of social. conflict” and others. He draws attention to the important role of social. collisions in the integration and stabilization of social life and emphasizes that the path of movement towards a stable social order does not exclude, but involves the struggle of various interests of individuals and social. groups and social clashes between them, because at the same time, the flexibility of social system and its institutions, their ability to overcome the consequences of these conflicts. In the overdue renewal of society, the conflict gives rise to new social. institutions and norms, stimulates economics. and technological progress.

Ralph Dahrendorf (1929) - the largest representative of modern conflictology, created his own "conflict model of society". Social conflict always exists, it is the norm of social development. systems, because people and their groups have different interests. Main works: "Social classes and class conflict in an industrial society", "Society and freedom", "Exit from utopia".

He made a great contribution to modern social theory. differentiation and social conflicts, showed that classes - social. groups of people that differ in participation and non-participation in dominance and are in conflict, tk. some have power and want to keep it, while others do not and want to change the status quo. Relations of domination and subordination are characteristic of any society. Aggravation and explosion of social. conflict, the essence of which lies in the confrontation between power and anarchy, which resists the existing power, is the source and driving force of social. change, social progress. The conflict itself grows out of the inequality of the status of people and their groups, primarily in relation to power, the management of society. Recognizing the inevitability, necessity and usefulness of social inequality, the possibility of combining social. conflict and peaceful coexistence of those in conflict, he prefers the conflict model of society in comparison with the model of a society of universal social. equality, social order and stability.

The problem of conflict is as old as the world. However, until the end of the XVIII century. thinkers reduced it to the problem of domination and subordination, resolved through the regulatory activity of the state.

Conflict as a social phenomenon was first formulated in Adam Smith's Inquiries into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). It expressed the idea that the conflict is based on the division of society into classes and economic rivalry. This division is the driving force behind the development of society, performing useful functions.

The problem of social conflict was also substantiated in the works of K. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin. This fact served as a basis for Western scholars to rank the Marxist concept among the “conflict theories”. It should be noted that in Marxism the problem of conflict received a simplified interpretation. In essence, it boiled down to a clash between antagonistic classes.

The problem of conflict received its theoretical justification in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The English sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), considering social conflict from the positions of social Darwinism, considered it an inevitable phenomenon in the history of society and an incentive for social development. The same position was held by the German sociologist (the founder of understanding sociology and the theory of social action) Max Weber (1864-1920). His compatriot Georg Simmel (1858-1918) coined the term "sociology of conflict" for the first time. On the basis of his theory of “social conflicts”, the so-called “formal school” later arose, whose representatives attach importance to contradictions and conflicts as stimulants of progress.

In the modern theory of conflict, there are many points of view on the nature of this phenomenon, and the practical recommendations of various authors are non-one-dimensional.

▼ One of them, conventionally called socio-biological, States that conflict is inherent in man as in all animals . Researchers in this area rely on the discovery by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) the theory of natural selection, and from it they derive the idea of ​​the natural aggressiveness of man in general. The main content of his theory of biological evolution is set forth in the book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Breeds in the Struggle for Life, published in 1859. The main idea of ​​the work: the development of wildlife is carried out in a constant struggle for survival, which is the natural mechanism for selecting the most adapted species. Following Ch. Darwin, "social Darwinism" appeared as a direction, the supporters of which began to explain the evolution of social life by the biological laws of natural selection. Also based on the principle of the struggle for existence, but already a purely sociological concept was developed by Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). He believed that the state of confrontation is universal and ensures balance not only within society, but also between society and the surrounding nature. The law of conflict was considered by G. Spencer as a universal law, but its manifestations must be observed until a complete balance between peoples and races is achieved in the process of development of society.

A similar point of view was shared by the American social Darwinist William Sumner (1840-1910), who argued that the weak, the worst representatives of the human race perish in the struggle for existence. The winners (successful American industrialists, bankers) are the true creators of human values, the best people.

At present, the ideas of social Darwinism have few followers, but certain ideas of this theory are useful in resolving current conflicts. Representatives of social Darwinism gave a description of a variety of conflicts, identifying various types of aggressive behavior of people :

· territorial aggression;

· dominance aggression;

· sexual aggression;

· parental aggression;

· child's aggression

· moralistic aggression;

· robber aggression;

· aggression of the victim in relation to the robber.

Of course, in real life there are many manifestations of such types of aggression, but, fortunately, they are not universal.

▼ The second theory is socio-psychological, explains conflict through tension theory . Its widest distribution refers to the period of the Second World War. It is based on the assertion that the features of modern industrial society inevitably entail a state of tension in most people when the balance between the individual and the environment is disturbed. This is associated with overcrowding, crowding, impersonality and instability of relations.

The social background of tension is frustration, which manifests itself in the form of disorganization of the internal state of the individual into social obstacles to achieving the goal. The phenomenon of frustration is generated if all possible ways to achieve the goal are blocked and can manifest itself in reactions of aggression, regression or withdrawal into oneself.

But explaining conflict with tension theory presents some difficulty, since it cannot determine at what level of tension the conflict should arise. Indicators of tension that appear in a particular situation are individual states of individuals and can hardly be used to predict collective outbursts of aggression.

▼ A third perspective, traditionally called the class or violence theory consists in the statement: social conflict is reproduced by societies with a certain social structure . Among the authors of such views on the conflict - Karl Marx (1818-1883), Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), IN AND. Lenin (1870-1924), Mao Zedong (1893-1976); German-American sociologist, representative of neo-Marxism Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), American sociologist of left-wing radical orientation Charles Wright Mills (1916-1962). Not without the influence of Marxism, the Italian school of political sociology developed, which created the theory of elites, the classics of which were Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), Robert Michels (1876-1936).

Marxist sociology has made significant adjustments to the prevailing ideas about the processes of social development.

The materialistic understanding of history is outlined by K. Marx in his book “On the Critique of Political Economy” (1859), where the structure of society is presented to him by four main elements:

· productive forces;

· relations of production;

· political superstructure;

· forms of social consciousness.

K. Marx believed that the conflict in society is due to the division of people into different classes in accordance with their position in the economic system. The main classes of society, according to Marx, are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between which there is constant enmity, since the goal of the bourgeoisie is the domination and exploitation of wage workers. Antagonistic conflicts lead to revolutions that are the locomotives of history. The conflict in this case is seen as an inevitable clash that needs to be properly organized in the name of accelerating the development of society, and violence is justified by the tasks of future creation.

The concept of class is central to Marxism, where it is defined in relation to the means of production. Outside Marxism the definition of classes (layers-strata are implied) is based on such criteria as attitude to power, property, income, lifestyle or standard of living, prestige (these are the main criteria of the theory of social stratification). But be that as it may, almost all authors agree with such features of classes as:

· collective inequality of living and working conditions;

· hereditary transfer of privileges (not only property, but also status).

Classes are characterized by unequal chances, which result from unequal levels of wealth, types of property, legal privileges, cultural advantages, etc., manifested in a certain way of life and a sense of belonging to the corresponding layer.

The theory of K. Marx, which assigned the role of the main bearers of political antagonisms to classes, on the whole correctly described the situation in Western Europe in the middle XIX - the beginning of the twentieth century. However, this does not mean its unconditional applicability to the conditions of other eras and regions. At present, probably no less important role as participants in political action began to play territorial (nations and other formations within nations) and corporate (professional and paraprofessional) groups. So, belonging to a territorial group is realized with particular acuteness by a person, therefore conflicts between nations can be extremely fierce, surpassing even class relations in this.

Corporate groups are formed by people engaged in the same or similar activities (big business, the banking system, export industries, etc.). The fact of performing one type of professional activity often generates a strong sense of solidarity, especially in an unstable economy. In cases where the way of life of representatives of different classes does not differ very much, the corporate spirit can weaken class solidarity.

Regarding the Marxist idea of ​​revolution , then the experience of Russia and other countries shows the dubious quality of a society with liberated violence that is born in such a flame. The classic of conflictology, the German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf, considers “revolutions to be melancholic moments in history. A brief flash of hope remains drowned in misery and disappointment.”

▼ The fourth point of view on conflict belongs to the functionalists: conflict is seen as a distortion, a dysfunctional process in social systems .

The leading representative of this trend is an American sociologist. Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) interpreted the conflict as a social anomaly, a "calamity" that must be overcome. He formulated a number of social prerequisites that ensure the stability of society:

· meeting the basic biological and psychological needs of the majority of society;

· effective activity of social control bodies educating citizens in accordance with the norms accepted in a given society;

· coincidence of individual motivations with social attitudes.

According to functionalists, a well-functioning social system should be dominated by consensus, and conflict should not find ground in society.

A point of view close to this position was also defended by representatives schools of "human relations" ( public relations ) . Famous representative of this school Elton Mayo (1880-1949), an American sociologist and psychologist, one of the founders of industrial sociology, argued that it is necessary to promote peace in industry, this is the main problem of our time. In his recommendations to the captains of industry, he argued the need to replace individual remuneration with group, economic - socio-psychological, implying a favorable moral climate, job satisfaction, and a democratic style of leadership.

Over time, it turned out that the expectations associated with the activities of the "human relations" school were excessive, and its recommendations increasingly began to be criticized. In the 1950s, a change in theoretical orientation began to be felt, a return to the conflict model of society was outlined. Functionalism was critically rethought, criticism of which was directed against the inability to give an adequate analysis of conflicts. The critical attitude to functionalism was promoted by the work of the American sociologist Robert Merton "Social Theory and Social Structure" (1949) in which he analyzed social anomalies in detail.

▼ At the same time, modern, most popular concepts of social conflict, conventionally called dialectical: conflict is functional for social systems. The most famous among them are the concepts Lewis Coser, Ralph Dahrendorf and Kenneth Boulding.

The conflict is considered by researchers as an inevitable part of the integrity of people's social relationships, not as a pathology and weakness of behavior. In this sense, conflict is not the opposite of order. Peace is not the absence of conflict, it consists in constructive communion with it, and peace is the working process of conflict resolution.

In 1956 an American sociologist Lewis Coser published a book "Functions of Social Conflict", where he outlined his concept, called "concepts of positive-functional conflict" . He built it in addition to the classical theories of structural functionalism, in which conflicts are taken out of sociological analysis. If structural functionalism saw an anomaly, a disaster in conflicts, then L. Koser argued that the more different conflicts intersect in a society, the more difficult it is to create a united front that divides members of society into two camps that are rigidly opposed to each other. The more independent conflicts, the better for the unity of society.

There was also a resurgence of interest in the conflict in Europe in the 1960s. In 1965 a German sociologist Ralph Dahrendorf published work "Class Structure and Class Conflict", and two years later an essay entitled "Beyond Utopia". His concept "conflict model of society" built on a dystopian, real vision of the world - a world of power, conflict and dynamics. If Koser proved the positive role of conflicts in achieving social unity, then Dahrendorf believed that disintegration and conflict are present in every society, this is a permanent state of the social organism:

“All social life is a conflict because it is changeable. There is no permanence in human societies, because there is nothing stable in them. Therefore, it is precisely in conflict that the creative core of all communities and the possibility of freedom, as well as the challenge to rational mastery and control over social problems, are located.

Contemporary American sociologist and economist Kenneth Boulding, author "general theory of conflict" in work “Conflict and defense. General Theory" (1963) tried to present a holistic scientific theory of conflict, covering all manifestations of animate and inanimate nature, individual and social life.

He uses conflict in the analysis of both physical, biological and social phenomena, arguing that even inanimate nature is full of conflicts, waging an "endless war of sea against land and some forms of terrestrial rock against other forms."

The dialectical theories of conflict L. Coser, R. Dahrendorf and K. Boulding considered by us focus on the dynamic explanation of the process of change and emphasize the positive role of conflict in the life of society.

The positive role of the conflict by the supporters of the dialectical approach is seen in the following:

- conflict helps to clarify the problem;

- conflict enhances the organization's ability to change;

- conflicts can reinforce morality, deepening and enriching relationships between people;

- conflicts make life more interesting, awaken curiosity and stimulate development;

- conflicts can contribute to self-improvement of skills and knowledge;

- conflicts increase the quality of decisions made;

- conflicts contribute to the production of new creative ideas;

- conflicts help people understand who they really are.

It can be argued that modern foreign literature on conflictology is dominated by:

What's New Lewis Coser Contributes:

In contrast to the theory of structural functionalism, whose representatives take conflicts outside the social system as something unusual for it, he argues that conflicts are a product of the internal life of society, i.e. he emphasizes their stabilizing role for the social system.

But the concept of “positive-functional conflict” did not dominate for long. In the mid-1960s, Ralf Dahrendorf presented the justification for the “conflict model of society”.

The essence of the concept of Ralf Dahrendorf is as follows:

· any society is subject to change at every moment;

· social change is omnipresent;

· any society experiences social conflict at every moment;

· social conflict is ubiquitous;

· every element of society contributes to its change;

· Any society relies on the coercion of some of its members by others.

R. Dahrendorf: “Those who know how to cope with conflicts by recognizing and regulating them take control of the rhythm of history. The one who misses this opportunity gets this rhythm to his opponents.”

Among the concepts that claim to be universal is Kenneth Boulding's “general theory of conflict”.

From the main provisions of the theory of K. Boulding it follows that:

· conflict is inseparable from social life;

· in the nature of man lies the desire for constant enmity with his own kind;

· conflict can be overcome or limited;

· all conflicts have common patterns of development;

· the key concept of the conflict is competition;

Competition is broader than the concept of conflict, since not every competition turns into a conflict. The parties are not aware of the fact of their rivalry.

· in a genuine conflict, there must be awareness of the parties and the incompatibility of their desires.

In the 70-90sIn Western studies of the conflict, two main directions have been identified:

· first- common in Western Europe (France, Holland, Italy, Spain) and is associated with the study of the conflicts themselves;

· second- widespread in the United States and associated with the study of peace and harmony, as evidenced by some of the popular publications indicated by us in the list of recommended reading.

The goals of the two scientific directions are essentially identical, but their achievement is associated with different methodological approaches.

Conflictology in Russia begins to develop in earnest only now, when we are faced with a number of acute labor and ethnic conflicts.

Social conflict is a process in which an individual or a group of individuals seek to achieve their own goals by eliminating, destroying or subjugating another individual or group of individuals.

In the 60s of the XX century. the sociological theory of conflict gained wide popularity, which was built in the works of L. Coser, R. Dahrendorf, O. Gouldner, G. Collins, as opposed to the predominance of structural functionalism with its emphasis on the interpretation of society as a controlled system based on consensus values ​​and the integrated role of common values. However, the theoretical origins of this theory are rooted in the concepts of K. Marx and G. Simmel.

In contrast to Marx's concept of social conflicts, which, as they intensify, reach the stage of antagonism, leading to the revolutionary destruction of capitalism, the outstanding German sociologist Georg Simmel believed that in the dynamics of conflicts, the deeper and sharper ones gradually give way to less intense and sharp ones, as a result of which the strength and integrativity of this system are strengthened. “As soon as life rose above a purely animal state to some spirituality, and the spirit, in turn, rose to the state of culture in it,” emphasizes G. Simmel, “an internal conflict was revealed, the growth and resolution of which is the path of renewal of the entire culture.” The sociodynamics of culture is such that the conflict is most often not resolved, but replaced by a new one in content and form, which, together with the previous and subsequent ones, is, according to G. Simmel, the main driving force behind the development of culture, and with it the entire life of society.

In the 1960s, a number of important innovations in the sociological theory of conflicts were introduced by Lewis Coser. He believed that the conflict is a struggle for values ​​and claims to a certain status, power and resources, a struggle in which the goals of the opponents are to neutralize, damage or destroy the rival. Based on this understanding of the essence of conflict, he argued: “In every type of social system, there are opportunities for conflict, since individuals and groups tend from time to time to make counterclaims for limited resources, positions of prestige or power.”

In the conflict functionalism of L. Coser, in the multidimensional consideration of the main parameters of conflicts - sharpness, duration, intensity, etc. - all the same, the primary importance is given to clarifying their functions. The most important of them are: 1) strengthening the cohesion of the members of the group; 2) a clearer distinction between warring groups; 3) strengthening the integrativity of the social system; 4) increasing the degree of adaptability of the system to changing conditions.

L. Coser argued that conflict can play an important integrating role in the sociodynamics of a social group. It unites the group, helps to establish the identity of the group within the boundaries that distinguish it from other groups. In addition, the conflict preserves the existence of the group as a whole, while playing the role of a safety valve, which contributes to the release of accumulating hostile feelings and restrains disintegration processes. Social conflict plays an important role in the interaction of different groups. Conflict serves to establish and maintain identities and lines of demarcation between groups and communities. Conflict with other groups contributes to the establishment and assertion of the identity of the group within the boundaries that protect from the outside world.

Social conflict does not always disorganize the relationships within which it arises; on the contrary, it becomes necessary for their preservation, maintenance and strengthening. Recognizing that conflicts under certain conditions can lead to the destruction and disintegration of social systems, L. Coser emphasized the positive functions of the conflict, which make it possible to maintain or restore the integration of the system and its adaptability to changing conditions. Leading to a disruption in the integration of the constituent parts of the social whole and thus to its temporary disintegration, social conflicts with a long-term effect under certain conditions (the tendency to reduce severity, focus not on individual, but on socially significant interests and goals, etc.) make the social structure more flexible , which enhances the system's ability to get rid of the imbalances that threaten it in the future. But, becoming more dynamic and flexible due to the emergence and resolution of conflicts, the system exhibits a high level of adaptability to changing conditions. “A society torn apart by a dozen contradictions with all sorts of directions is in less danger of being forcibly torn apart than a society in which there is only one unidirectional split. A new clash contributes to a reduction in the scale of all other conflicts that intersect with it. Therefore, we can say that society is held together by its internal conflicts.

Such a statement leads L. Coser to a very important conclusion about the distinction between two types of social systems, depending on the extent to which these systems show tolerance or, on the contrary, intolerance to conflicts. If social systems of a rigid, totalitarian type seek to suppress conflicts, then open, flexible social systems allow the possibility and even the desirability of many conflicts that arise in various spheres, for various reasons, and therefore draw into their orbits a few warring groups. “In flexible social systems, multiple conflicts intersect with each other, thus preventing serious upheavals of axial structures. By allowing immediate and direct expression of contentious claims, such social systems are able to restructure their structures, eliminating sources of dissatisfaction. The many conflicts they face remove the causes of group division and restore unity. Such systems use tolerance and the institutionalization of conflict as an important stabilizing mechanism.”

An important stage in the development of the sociology of conflicts was the theory Ralph Darepdorf. It proceeds from the presence of classes in an industrial society and the relations of domination and subordination that follow from this, leading not only to the opposition of interests, but also to the awareness of such opposition by representatives of opposite classes. The more deeply the opposition of interests is realized, the more various communities of people, differentiating into carriers of domination or subordination, from social quasi-groups are transformed into conflict groups, the clash of which leads to social conflict.

The conflict model of society developed by Dahrendorf is based on four fundamental postulates:

1. Every society at every given moment of its development is subject to processes of change - these changes are omnipresent.

2. Disagreement and conflict appear in every society at every moment of time - social conflict is ubiquitous

3. Every element in society contributes to its disintegration and change.

4. Each society relies on coercion applied by some of its members in relation to others.

From the point of view of R. Dahrendorf, over the past fifteen years, a new type of conflict has begun to grow dangerously in society, capable of undermining and weakening the social system, even leading to its destruction. We are talking about powerful upheavals in society, "acting in the form of insoluble national conflicts." Another feature of modern conflicts has become the "individualization of social conflict in open societies", where "individual mobility takes the place of class struggle." There is another extremely common “form of embodiment of conflict” in modern societies. He is now - "not the line of fire in a revolutionary war, and not even the struggle of the democratic class, but anomie." In his understanding, "anomie refers to a state of affairs when violations of social norms get away with criminals." The most important means of overcoming this situation is the establishment of a social contract between different groups, which takes on two main forms: on the one hand, a contract of domination (power, domination), on the other hand, an association contract. The second type creates conditions for the harmonization of modern societies.

A significant contribution to the development of the modern macrosociological theory of conflict was made by the famous American sociologist, professor at the University of California Randal Collins in his books “Conflict Sociology” (1975), “Theoretical Sociology” (1988) and others. interrelated theoretical postulates.

1. Central feature of any social system
as an organization is a stratification, which is
a specific kind and a certain degree of inequality of groups and
individuals in their dominance over each other.

2. The reasons for the processes and changes taking place in society must be sought in the interests of groups and individuals, primarily to maintain dominant positions or evade them from the dominance of others.

3. Who and what wins in this struggle depends on controlled resources, including material ones, for coercion and economic calculations, as well as resources for social organization and the formation of emotions and ideas.

4. The driving force of social change is conflict, which operates in such a way that long periods of stable dominance alternate with intense episodes of mobilization of groups entering into conflict confrontation with each other.

Such a conceptual approach, which brings the peaks of conflict interactions to periods of mobilization of groups beyond the redistribution of opportunities and boundaries of dominance, leads R. Collins to the idea of ​​combining conflict sociology with the concepts of organizing the redistribution of social power. Based on the fundamental thesis of R. Dahrendorf about the priority location of conflict interactions along the axis of power, he supplements it, more precisely, synthesizes it, with the concept of four dimensions of power proposed by the American sociologist M. Mann back in the mid-30s: military-geopolitical, political , economic and cultural-ideological. According to the four types of power, R. Collins analyzes through the macroconflict prism of social interactions four types of organizations deploying their specific ways of functioning through four types of networks: military, political, economic, ideological. Each of these types of networks, in so far as they organize people, is a form of power.

When it comes to the macro-conflict interpretation of the deployment of geopolitical networks, R. Collins brings to the fore two statements. The first of these proclaims the decisive importance of "advantage in resources: military conflicts are usually won by a larger and richer state." This principle is cumulative, since the victorious states absorb the resources of the defeated states. The second principle is geo-positional advantage: states surrounded by fewer enemies are militarily superior to states with numerous enemies.

Describing the dynamics of political networks, R. Collins draws attention to the fact that "organizations (and not individuals) are the main actors in large-scale political arenas." Therefore, in the process of analyzing these networks, consideration of the conditions that mobilize "conflict groups for action" comes to the fore. As a consequence, "resource mobilization theory is a direct extension of conflict theory in terms of interests and resources, with an emphasis on organizational conditions, motivations and values."

Analyzing the development of conflicts in the structure of economic networks, R. Collins especially highlights one of the features of this process, which has manifested itself in recent decades. “At the end of the 20th century,” he writes, “the markets of metafinance emerge as an arena for the management of corporate finance with appropriate means of influence. This fits into the general theory of conflict regarding the secure creation of new structures of conflict, which are built on the previous ones.